Is Chomsky the greatest philosopher alive?
No, Wittgenstein is.
>>26298
That man is a faggot of the highest caliber.
>>26298
He can't understand simple intend and thinks the US is the worst thing ever.
No but he's a pretty damn good lingust.
>tfw he invented Chomsky Normal Form, for programming language compilers etc.
No, not by a long, long, way
probably kripke
Good linguist, bad philosopher
>>26298
>philosopher
no
>social political commentator
maybe
Sowell's still kicking but his words dont reach very far on the spectrum
>>30046
>Liking both Sowell and Chomsky?
What?
>>30435
#yolo
:DDDDDDDDD
>>30495
no please explain how you can like them both when they agree on nothing.
>>26298
Philosopher, no.
But probably the best political analyst because he exposes US hypocrisy which is present in most modern conflicts.
no that would be Nick Land
>>30652
lmao
This is the thing about Chomsky.
He's not actually a qualified philosopher. He's just a linguist with a political opinion. And a lot of his opinions (particularly in regards to Cambodia) are dodgy as shit.
The best living philosopher in terms of someone who has made a serious, influential and original contribution to philosophy in recent years is Slavoj Zizek.
>>30722
Land is just a fascist with a thing for robots.
>>26298
>philosopher
Not competent in the field, so no. Think you meant linguist btw.
>>30618
Easy - they're both very profound, interesting men. Chomsky of a poor immigrant family wrote his first article when he was 14 or something ridiculous - Sowell use to deliver groceries in Harlem and ironically considered himself a marxist in college. I find myself tending to agree with Sowell much more than Chomsky on everything besides war and conflict, but it may be a phase, it's hard to tell, I'm still greatly interested in learning more and both have been great teachers.
Shit even Buckley agreed with Chomsky on alot of things in his later years.
>>30800
except no
>>30854
How is Dark Enlightenment not fascism?
Ultra-reactionary social policies.
Capitalistic economics.
>implying that's not Slavoj Zizek
>implying
>>30810
/thread
>>26298
Zizek.
>>31567
>making shitty posts by oversimplifying everything you have no knowledge of
leave this board
>>31746
The main problem with considering Zizek to be the most important publishing philosopher is that anyone could do his combination of Lacan and Marx. The only real contribution he makes is the shtick.
Kripke is a pretty obvious answer, and I don't like Kripke.
>>31567
m8
slavoj žižek is taking right wing ideas and translating them into modern liberal left's language
besides he's not to be taken literally, you're supposed to read between the lines of what he says
>>31808
Zizek is more of a Hegelian than a Marxist
>>30773
You think Zizek is good? I don't know, he says interesting but 70% of what he says is shit.
>so many people falling for a bait this easy
>>28617
Wittgenstein is dead, dude.
>>32501
s-sorry what?
Lol, no, Kant was.
>>32529
>somewhere, a lion growls in mourning.
>>32178
Philosophers should be read, not listened to.
His talks are the same recurring comedy act for the most part.
>>32178
His writings on the subconscious nature of ideology are tremendously important
>>30947
A reaction against modernity means a reaction against capitalism too and anticipates a return to feudal social relations. They're capitalists either because they're confused or because being a "captain of industry" is what they see as a powerful person in today's climate.
They're libertarians ready to discard that whole 'liberty' part for the sake of harmonious laissez-faire(but don't laissez-faire those commies and homoshexshuals and uppity negroes and those commie-voting women) which more or less follows that they just want power and think it's a perfect excuse to hide behind "principles" or "natural law" or whatever to get that power.
We can just call it fascism and save some trouble, but fascism was very much an animal of the dawning 20th century while dork enlighteners are "techno-libertarians" dressed in anachronistic garb and exposed to the radiation of postmodernism.
>>30021
is it just me or is it always kids just being introduced to analytical philosophy who proclaim kripke the godking (and soames his herald)
everyone else was content to laugh kripke off after gareth evans shit in his throat
greatest philosopher alive is.. is..
>that feel when quine, davidson, david lewis, and dummett have all died in the last two decades
;_;
>>33244
Remember: important doesn't mean good.
>>26298
>dat feel when Heidegger is not around anymore.
I know he was a nazi, but God damn Being and Time is awesome.
>>32534
I don't know what you were going for with this post but I got a good chuckle, so thanks
>HABERMAS
Brilliant mind and a brilliant person.
I met him last year. Humble despite his massive influence.
>choose your favourite philosopher
>find the foremost living scholar of that philosopher
You have your best living philosopher.
>Is Chomsky the greatest philosopher alive?
Yes; the only people who would seriously disagree are marxistfags, post-modernist farts, and stormdurps
He's one of the only mainstream guys doing objective analytical research into power-structures, instead of being a hand waving charlatan
>>26298
Wasn't he a linguist?
He had a theory on universal grammar, but it doesn't apply to 1 language - Pirahã
I like Chomsky, and I think it's important for someone like him to be critical of western policies, but he doesn't hold the east to the same standards and that glaring hypocrisy is where he loses me.
Obviously not.
>>30818
Let me guess, you dont consider yourself to be on the left/right dichotomy?
mubling faggot who thinks he's edgy and unique for saying the us is the devil
that's a funny way to spell Habermas, OP
>>26298
Nothing more than a leftist populist who accentuates and elaborates obvious statements
Hell Zizek is better than Chmosky
>not posting based taleb
No it's Searle, obviously you plebs
>>34912
Watch Foucault demolish him in the debate.
>>26298
Not even a philosopher.
>>33244
>davidson
It hurts anon, it hurts so bad.
>>35063
bingo
it endlessly annoys me that people listen to talking heads who don't even pontificate on the fields they study
dawkins, hitchens, chomsky, comedians commenting on politics, celebrities on anything... ruins muh day tbchwyf
>>35210
or the worst
Harris
Chomsky is not a philosopher.
>>28922
Classic sam
>>33498
I love TOCA and BFAN but his early critical theory work and many of his essay collections are cringeworthy
After having done my masters in the philosophy of language, rereading some of Habermas' exposé of Wittgenstein it's wikipedia/SEP tier
I've never seen anyone directly attack what he says politically and make a good point Tbf because I've almost never seen anyone try beyond saying he hates America.
Same here, all just bs generalisations or meme posting
>>33666
neither to french, I think
>>34989
whom? Zizek or Chomsky?
Zizek>>>>>>>>>Chomsky
I don't claim to know anything about philosophy, but I like daniel denett alot.
>>31992
>Implying Hegelians and Marxists aren't essentially the same
Only liberals who are afraid of Marx because they learned the USSR was bad in High School think differently
Any philosophy that isn't epistemology is shit.
>>35981
>Dennet position on philosophy of mind is asinine at best, pathological at worst.
Can you elaborate?
>subscribing to universal grammar
his theories are shit, his linguistic work is shit, and his political commentary is hit and miss but largely irrelevant. his is uni babbys first academic figure. meme tier.
>>35981
Any source to your claim senpai?
>>30652
>he exposes US hypocrisy
Interesting trait considering he's a hypocrite himself
>>35881
he's pretty cool, his positions on the philosophy of mind (especially in "Consciousness Explained") are considered extremely reductive and his collaboration with Hofstadter is cringeworthy, but I appreciate him keeping in check the weird dualists that still plague philosophy departments, and he is deeply commendable in his metaphilosophical stances (which are actually quite similar to Sellars, Austin, and Wittgenstein) in that he doesn't see philosophy as some overarching sphere of scrutiny and sacred practice, but he just feels he wants to helpfully contribute to some of the way people usually discuss things
>>36057
He's an eliminativist. He thinks consciousness does not actually exist. That is, when you say you're seeing X, you're not actually seeing X. And I don't mean that he thinks X does not correspond to some actual, real X, he denies the fact that you have the impression of seeing X. Which is beyond ridiculous because having the impression of seeing something means that you are in fact seeing something,
Consciousness can't be illusory because in order to suffer an illusion you have to be conscious in the first place.
>>36115
The Chomsky bit? Let's see...
http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm
He's not even an actual philosopher. Zizek is the most importent, the best, and by far the most fun philosopher alive.
>>26298
No either Aristotle or St. Thomas
![helme[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/sNp79sp.jpg "helme[1].jpg")
>mfw all this leftism
>>26298
Absolutely not. Have you read "A peoples History of the United States"? Or heard him talk? Also he's an anarch0-syndicalist, literally retard-tier.
>>36256
Usually looking back people see the leftists as correct and revered
>>36084
>his linguistic work is shit
And why would that be? You do know that most of modern linguistic research (the non-bullshit ones) is based on Chomsky's work?
>>36316
That's a recent trend, and only symptomatic of the absurd level of control leftist or leftist friendly people have over current humanistic academia.
>>36316
Hah that's only because leftists tend to be the most progressive in their views.
And there's a fucking large different between leftists throughout history.
>>36316
What absolute twaddle. Where are the Maoists now? The Leninists? The Stalinists? The Khmer Rouge?
>inb4 'not real leftists'
>>36328
>(the non-bullshit ones)
>everything I don't like is bullshit
Liberals in a nutshell
>>36316
/lit/ please
>>30618
I'm gonna let you in on a secret my friend,
you can like someone without agreeing with everything they believe,
>>36405
Still, you haven't proven to me how Chomsky is a shit linguist.
>>30618
>The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.
>>36469
Because that wasn't my post. But judging from your response to him you're not even worth arguing with.
>>26298
John McDowell and Robert Brandom are.
>>36490
You're being ironic right? I can't tell.
>>35881
even pigliucci thinks he's a retard lmfao
>>36469
>universal grammar, generative grammar, genetic component
>not bullshit
topkek
>>36400
>Leninists
>Stalinists
You lose
>>36256
>literally a shitty Oakeshott
there are decent conservative thinkers, but roger scrotum isn't one of them
>>36494
Difficult to argue with someone who throw "X is shit" without even explaining why.
>>26298
His politics are horribly ill-informed.
>>36588
Still, it was the best approach to formalize language at his time and a lot of recent research are still based on his work. You saying it's shit kind of angers me because it's mostly what I study every day.
>>26298
>retarded marxist muslim apologist kike
nah
Hitchens is far better.
>>26298
I remember my first semester in college
>anarcho-syndicalism
Are there any living descendants of the Thomist/Kierkegaardian modern guys like jacques maritain and hans urs von balthasar?
It seems like actual good Christian philosophy has been quarantined to the catholic church and for the most part kept out of academia for the sake of all the other misleading bullshit they teach in philosophy class.
>>37167
Yeah, peter hitchens.
>analytical 'philosophy'
>>39372
>Thomist/Kierkegaardian
What has Thomas got to do with Kierkegaard? Kierkegaard was a Hegelian...
>>36256
Scruton isn't even a philosopher, he's a jumped up art critic.
>>26298
>Implying Chomsky is a philosopher.
He's just a stupid cognitivist linguist. His politics is childish and his 'human nature' business is pathetic.
>>26298
I don't know about the greatest philosopher alive, but I consider Bertrand Russell to be the greatest philosopher from last century.
>>39764
You have got to be kidding me.
>>39764
>not Wittgenstein
>>39962
>'you can't know nuffin' Shitgenstein
>>39764
ayyy
>>26298
I don't know much about these people, so I'll ask who is closest to me.
I think we're all biological machines and consciousness is just like a program on a computer.
I like capitalism but see that some regulations are worth it. People should be very careful about what "worth it" means.
People act in their own self interest, but sometimes cooperation is part of self interest.
>>40557
>>40557
Congratulations on your functioning brain.
>>36508
>McDowell
>try to refute davidson in a series of lectures and fail miserably
>for some reason then popularized as having invented the myth of the given (which was kant but expounded at length by sellars)
>collected a trillion fucking dollars or whatever that prize money was he got recently
Brandom is going to usher in another dark age of german idealism
>>40734
Wait, this is what most of the people here think? The only people I know of are chompsky and Kant, and they sure don't sound like that.
